Masters

MEMORANDUM **

*755 Mary Masters appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of her personal injury complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389 , 1393 (9th Cir. 1988).

None of the causes of action in Masters’ complaint is either “created by federal law” or involves a “substantial, disputed question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9, 13 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). While Masters alleges violations of the Medical Device Amendments in her complaint, that statute does not create a private right of action. See Medtronic Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 487 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996). When Congress creates no private right of action under a statute, “the presence of a claimed violation of the statute is insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal question jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 814 , 106 S.Ct. 3229 , 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). Masters’ reliance on federal law to provide the…